Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Joanne Bunting, junior Minister; Aisling Reilly, junior Minister; Martin Carey, truth recovery programme director; and Elaine Allen, head of the redress team in TEO.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You are packing the place out. Is there anybody you have not brought with you? [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are all very welcome, especially Joanne. This is your first session before the Committee.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Thank you; be nice. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I hope that you are settling well into your new role.

Are you wanting to give an overview?

Ms Bunting: Yes, please, we will, Madam Chairman, if that is OK with you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, go ahead.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to attend. Joanne and I have been asked to take forward this important and complex piece of legislation on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we are privileged to do so. I thank Pam for her work up to this point. I am sure that Joanne will echo that in her remarks.

This historical ill-treatment of and discrimination against women and girls should be a source of shame. There are many lessons to be learned about attitudes, behaviours, values and systems that can help to shape how we respond to matters today. This issue affects many people, and it is important that we work together to make the Bill as meaningful as possible. It is also important to acknowledge that many elements have been taken forward outside the Bill, such as providing the opportunity for victims and survivors to provide oral testimony, for psychological and emotional support services, and the preservation of and support for access to records. Notable, too, as part of the five core recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel and developed with victims and survivors is that other redress and reparation measures will follow but with a focus on non-financial redress, including memorialisation and a form of apology.

The introduction of the Bill in June represented a major milestone, with the Executive providing £80 million for the inquiry and redress. It will provide a full and independent inquiry with sufficient resources to investigate what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. We are pleased to bring forward a financial redress scheme, and we are acutely aware that no state redress scheme can ever properly atone for what happened to those most affected. However, the standardised payment that the legislation will deliver aims to be a start, and more will follow in the individually assessed payment scheme. I thank the Committee for its work and the opportunity that it has provided to victims, survivors and others to make their views on the Bill known in a supported way.

Ministers have been in listening mode throughout the Committee Stage, which has been valuable and helped us to identify key areas where we can work constructively with the Committee on potential amendments. We have paid close attention, especially to the voices of those affected. We have considered ideas or areas that the Committee suggested could improve the Bill and identified areas that could be amended to bring further clarity or assurance. We are considering potential amendments that, subject to Executive agreement, Ministers may table at Consideration Stage. Of course, there are other issues that the Committee may wish to raise or discuss today. We will write formally to the Committee about those matters, but we wanted to outline the latest position in person today.

We have grouped the potential amendments into three items, which we heard come through during the evidence sessions: amendments to increase support for victims and survivors; amendments to provide additional assurance; and amendments to increase timely access to justice and trust.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Can you slow down a wee bit? We are trying to take down some notes.

Ms Reilly: I will go through them clause by clause.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): All right; that is OK.

Ms Reilly: I have you covered there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Ms Reilly: I will cover the first two, and Joanne will cover the last, before adding some of the final reflections.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is OK. Thank you.

Ms Reilly: I will deal with the potential amendments to increase support for victims and survivors.

In relation to clause 5, we heard the Committee's strong view that a multidisciplinary panel for the inquiry would greatly support the inquiry chair in their role and provide wider expertise on that complex and sensitive area of investigation. As you know, the Bill, as it stands, suggests the possibility of a single chair with the potential to have a larger inquiry panel. In light of the views expressed by the Committee and others, we are minded to table an amendment to ensure that the inquiry panel will comprise a chair and at least one other panel member.

Next, I come to clause 15. We heard evidence provided at Committee Stage that raised concern about how restrictions may inhibit access to the inquiry for those most directly affected. With that in mind, we propose an amendment to ensure that, should a person not have prior access to information related to them, there would be an obligation on the chair to balance that when making their decision on a restriction order.

In relation to clause 38, we have heard the concerns of both the Committee and the Human Rights Commission on the 30-day window for redress appeals being too short. We understand that argument and are content to table an amendment to extend that period to 90 days, which goes beyond other schemes.

In respect of clause 39, we feel that that provision should make it clear that the Executive Office, not the redress service, is responsible for facilitating access to advice and assistance. That makes clear the balance of responsibilities, with the aim of providing high-quality guidance and support.

With regard to schedule 1, we agree with the Committee's view that the redress scheme should be promoted widely. With that in mind, Ministers are minded to table an amendment to the Bill that will make it explicit that the redress service will have responsibility for the promotion of the scheme with the agreed associated funding coming from the Executive Office.

Are you happy for me to continue?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, please. Thank you.

Ms Reilly: The second group of amendments that I will cover are amendments that will provide assurance or clarity.

In respect of clause 4, we have noted the concerns raised by the Committee with regard to those who may have become pregnant while under the care of an institution. We acknowledge that that experience may not be fully reflected in the Bill, and Ministers are content to table an amendment that strengthens the Bill further by making sure that that is explicitly captured. We have asked officials to liaise with the drafters on the wording of that clause.

In so far as clause 31 goes, we intend to clarify the eligibility for redress at subsection (4) so that it relates specifically to the children of the women admitted to a mother-and-baby institution for shelter and maintenance and not those whose mothers were admitted for the primary purpose of receiving medical care. That balances with the eligibility of subsection (2) and removes a potential area of unfairness.

In relation to clause 33, we are actively considering and seeking drafting advice on whether some applications can be dealt with administratively rather than requiring all to have judicial determinations. That would mean that more straightforward applications can be processed in a more timely way.

Finally, I will speak to clause 2, which relates to the inquiry's terms of reference. We have listened carefully and are aware that cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children has been raised a number of times at your sessions. We reassure you that that is already covered in the Bill under "departure", but we are actively considering how to provide more prominence, given its obvious importance. Today, as a minimum, we will commit to that forming part of the external terms of reference.

I will now pass over to Joanne, who will set out the remainder of the amendments that Ministers are mindful to consider, subject to Executive agreement.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Go ahead, please.

Ms Bunting: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; thank you, Aisling; and thank you for your warm welcome. I appreciate and would also like to put on record my thanks to Pam, my predecessor in this role. She put a considerable amount of work into the Bill, and I know that it is a subject that is close to her heart. I thank you very much for your work, Pam.

I, too, would like to keep our focus on potential areas for amendment, so I will turn immediately to that, before making some closing remarks. As Aisling outlined, the final group of potential amendments is to increase timely access to justice and trust.

I will start with clause 18. We have heard and agree that a modular evidence and reporting approach for the inquiry could be beneficial, so we will consult with the chair of the inquiry on that. We propose to strengthen clause 18 by tabling an amendment that will ensure that the inquiry panel will have the ability to provide a number of interim reports periodically throughout the inquiry, should it so choose.

We noted the points that were made about the requirement for the negative resolution Assembly procedure to extend the redress scheme, as provided for in clause 32(3), and we are minded to table an amendment to convert the Assembly control from negative resolution to draft affirmative procedures. We hope that that gives you and the Examiner some assurance.

I move now to clause 40. Naturally, we must expect the highest levels of confidentiality and standards. It is a very sensitive area of work. In order to balance Part 2 of the Bill with Part 1, we wish to amend the Bill to specify that contravening a restriction order made by the redress service president will have the same penalty as one made by the inquiry chair. Therefore, it would be an offence to break a restriction order, and it would broadly look like clause 23.

That outlines some of our other potential amendments that we are content to share with the Committee as soon as the draft becomes available. More broadly, I will take a few minutes to conclude on some elements that have not been covered to date and to make some final reflections.

In relation to clause 26, we know that the Committee heard concerns about the Bill's 14-day limit for a judicial review (JR). That mirrors provision within the Inquiries Act 2005. We recognise that access to justice measures are a key part of the inquiry process. There is already discretion in the court to extend that period, if necessary. That said, we will continue to look at it, but we need to be careful not to cause long periods of delay in the process and in the overall duration of the inquiry with JRs. Timeliness is a key factor for victims and survivors, so we need to strike a balance that ensures a timely inquiry for victims and survivors, particularly given the age of many of them.

We are also aware of concerns that were raised at Committee in relation to clause 27, due to the fact that, as drafted, the rules in support of the Bill are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Since that is largely for administrative rules, we consider that the negative resolution procedure remains appropriate, similar to rules created under the Inquiries Act 2005. Of course, important safeguards remain in place that a debate and vote can be taken if the delegated legislation is prayed on. Therefore, that avenue is still available to the Committee and Assembly.

We know that there are concerns that the Bill is too specific and prescriptive when it comes to the institutions, bodies, agencies and individuals. However, we take this opportunity to ease those concerns, particularly those of the victims and survivors, by reaffirming that the Bill has been designed to allow the inquiry chairperson the flexibility, discretion and agency to complete a full but timely investigation. By that I mean that we consider that there is scope within clause 1 to follow the pathways and follow where the evidence takes the inquiry. For example, clauses 1 and 18 provide that discretion and flexibility to the chair, as I have outlined, and clauses 13 to 17 provide meaningful provisions to protect and support witnesses to provide information. Clause 10 provides for active participation for victims and survivors via an advisory panel.

I move now to redress, which is an important issue for everybody. We have benchmarked against other schemes and processes. The standardised payment scheme compares favourably in terms of approach, inclusivity, eligibility and the support model. It is important to note that the date that we have set goes back 10 years further than that of the Republic of Ireland. That will afford more people the opportunity to be included.

Building on the ministerial commitments following the truth recovery design panel recommendations, the redress focuses on the system of institutions established for women and girls who were so unfairly stigmatised by society. It is an admission-only-based scheme, so there is no requirement for applicants to provide a potentially re-traumatising statement of experience, and payments will be made before formal investigation. That is an atypical approach in itself, and it demonstrates our collective commitment to reparations. Other benefits are that the scheme will not take any other payments into account, that it will not impact on a claimant's social security payments, and that it does not require the signing of a waiver, which was a key factor in some learning from other jurisdictions.

The scheme seeks to address the historical discrimination suffered by women and girls who were sent to mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries, but it also takes an inclusive approach, in that all those admitted for "shelter or maintenance" and all children now adults linked to that admission are eligible for redress, regardless of experience or time spent. We strongly believe that the standardised payment scheme stands on its own merits. No other jurisdiction in the UK has provided redress in that area, and the Irish Government's mother-and-baby institution payment scheme has faced challenges. Nor must we forget that, in addition, a harm-based individually assessed payment will follow, with a focus on individual experiences. That, again, will be another scheme.

The Committee has heard evidence on the need for amendments to clause 31, namely that the posthumous date and level of amount should be backdated and increased respectively. It is important to note that financial redress is only one form of acknowledgement. We remain committed to delivering a comprehensive programme of non-financial redress, including a formal apology and memorialisation. The Committee will understand that Ministers must balance a large number of factors and pressing priorities. We appreciate that there is a shared desire to do more. However, the scheme that is on the table is a package that the Executive as a whole believe is deliverable. Deliverability is key in the circumstances.

We have a duty to be realistic about what can be delivered now. As elected Members, we hear every day about the pressures in Health, Justice and Education, and we need to consider how best to meet the wide range of needs right across society. It is important that we put on record that what we all would like to do and what we are necessarily able to do are not the same things. We appreciate that that is a difficult message, and we appreciate the trauma that people have been through. We remain in listening mode. All state redress schemes have to consider how best to target scarce public moneys. That is brought into sharp focus in this context, where the Secretary of State to date has shown no willingness to contribute to the costs of the Bill. For the avoidance of any doubt, the assumption at the moment has to be that the £80 million earmarked for the Bill will have to be funded from the current block grant. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is not a good position or a fair position, but, unfortunately, that is where we are at.

We are mindful of the limited success that other jurisdictions have had in seeking contributions from institutions. I have no doubt that they have experienced some of the same legal obstacles that exist here, and there is no easy solution for satisfactorily taking that forward. We assure the Committee, however, that we will do whatever we can to ensure that those responsible pay their share of contributions towards redress. We are acutely aware of how important that is to many victims and survivors and, I think, to the public at large. We are also committed to ensuring that there is a fair and impartial investigation, with a human rights-based approach as its cornerstone, which will be fundamental to securing contributions at the appropriate time, with the appropriate evidence in place.

We are actively considering whether any other measures can be included in the Bill, but, to be crystal clear, we are not going to bring forward any amendment that affects, or even potentially risks, the legislative competence of the Bill and our ability to take the inquiry and redress forward. That would not be the fair thing or right thing to do for the victims and survivors.

In summation, although the amendments that we have outlined today are not necessarily a definitive list of the ones that Ministers are considering or inclined to table, we reiterate that the list and any further potential amendments come with the caveat that ministerial amendments containing any substantive policy change would need to be subject to Executive agreement.

We know that the process and its outworkings cannot undo the past for people, but we are determined to do the best that we can with what we know that we can deliver at this time. I thank all the victims and survivors who have helped us to get to this point. I also place on record our thanks to the Committee for its support on this most serious of issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Do any of the officials want to say anything at this point? No. OK.

Thank you for outlining the potential amendments that you are thinking of bringing forward at Consideration Stage. I want to pick up on some of the language that you just used, junior Minister, about the posthumous date, the eligibility for redress etc. I am somebody who has been involved in this process for many years, including the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry. You say that the Executive Office remains committed to non-formal ways of redress. The HIA inquiry report came out in January 2017, and the victims still have not got their memorial plaque nearly nine years on. How can anybody take the Executive Office seriously in that space when it takes you nine years to put up a plaque on a wall in this Building? That may not mean a lot to people here who are salaried, but it does to the birth mothers and their adult children who have suffered a lifetime of pain off the back of it. Junior Minister, you talked today about the pressures on Health. It was proven that the people who experienced that trauma will have greater ill health in later years, so we have to acknowledge the impact that it had on them then and that it is having throughout their life.

Whilst I welcome a lot of the proposed amendments, I think that you have fallen well short in listening in the same mode that we as a Committee have listened to the victims and survivors who brought evidence to us about the sheer pain that they felt when they saw the posthumous date in the draft Bill. It caused so much upset. Then there is this statement about how generous the scheme is compared with those in other jurisdictions. I am not a representative for other jurisdictions. I do not care what they do. We have to do what is right for the people who suffered in our institutions here. If it is an acknowledgement payment, we have to acknowledge all the birth mothers and all the adult adoptees who went through those horrendous institutions. I do not buy what you have said there. I think that the date is arbitrary. It is linked to HIA. It should never have featured in the Bill. I take your commentary, but I do not accept it.

We also heard evidence that a lot of the birth mothers are of an age where they do not want to wait for an inquiry, then the recommendations, then the Ministers to accept those and then a second, individually assessed redress scheme. That could take up to 10 years. A lot of those women have said, "We will not be here, and, in our latter years, we do not want to have to go through the trauma of then having to demonstrate the level of abuse that we have suffered". They would like a decent redress acknowledgement payment now that would satisfy them that the stigma, the abuse and the pain that they experienced have been acknowledged by the state, and they would then probably not go for an individually assessed scheme. On that basis, I think that it would be prudent — the Committee may not agree with me — for us to make the first stage as inclusive as possible, because I imagine that the second, follow-up redress scheme will not have the same number of applicants.

That is all that I have to say. I do not expect you to respond to that, but you can if you would like to. I think that you have made your comments clear for the record.

Ms Bunting: There is a lot in there, and it covers many of the key issues. Let us start with the posthumous date, and then we can work towards the standardised payment and so on.

A posthumous date is a standard feature of redress schemes that allow claims to be made on behalf of the deceased, which not all do. The date is usually linked to a state acknowledgement or an announcement. The victims' payment scheme uses the date that the Stormont Agreement had. The Scottish redress scheme uses the date on which the First Minister apologised for institutional abuse.

It is estimated that the standardised payment will provide redress for over 6,000 people, and approximately 2,000 of those will be on behalf of the deceased. It is important to note that the standardised payment scheme is already intergenerational and that the mother and child, who is now an adult, are included. You raised the issue of encompassing everybody. The standardised payment is already more inclusive than that in any comparable scheme. I understand what you said, Madam Chairman, with regard to your not being a representative for those other areas. However, there are precedents and issues of fairness.

The standardised payment has to ensure that public funds are directed to those who are most directly affected by the institutions, and, to cover some of the issues that you raised about —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before you go on, you are saying that 6,000 people will apply and then 2,500 children will apply. Is that

?

Mr Martin Carey (The Executive Office): Sorry, if you do not mind, Ministers. There were 4,500 people who were either in an institution or were a child, now an adult, born to a birth mother in an institution, and there are claims on behalf of 2,000 deceased persons.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. We have spent years and well over £1 million of public money doing research and taking oral testimonies. How many people have come forward to give oral testimonies? The number is in the hundreds. You are talking about thousands here. You could knock a nought off those thousands; the figure will be in the hundreds.

Mr Carey: We have looked at the volumes who gave oral testimony during HIA processes and how those converted into applications for a harm-based scheme. We have also looked at actuarial reports to establish the number of people who were in the institutions and at lots of different metrics on propensity.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): They were children. We are talking about the mothers. We are a generation past them. I am just saying that I think that it will be nowhere near the figures that you are working off. Of course, we are all very aware of the pressures that are on public finances at the minute, but I am not here to guilt-trip anybody who feels that they should receive an acknowledgement payment through the redress scheme for the harm that they experienced in one of those institutions. I will move on.

The other issue that has come through very strongly relates to clause 4. Junior Minister Bunting, you referenced the prescribed institutions. We have heard loud and clear from many that, even though that captures the likes of private hospitals or private nursing homes, in order to acknowledge the pain that they have gone through, those people would like to see those institutions written into the Bill. I appreciate that you said that there is flexibility in that, but the people who have suffered want that to feature.

Ms Reilly: Research is ongoing with the independent panel, which is looking at private nursing homes. That will be a really important scope for the public inquiry. As you mentioned, Chair, the Bill will be flexible so that, once the independent panel has done the research, other institutions can be included after consulting the panel chair and getting approval from the Assembly, so there is scope in the inquiry to amend that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that, but it should be in the Bill. On a more positive note, I am genuinely so pleased that there will be an amendment to cover those mothers who became pregnant while in an institution. I have heard some horrendous stories, and I know that there will be people watching who will be so pleased that their mother's experience will be reflected in the Bill, so thank you for that.

Ms Reilly: We think that it is also extremely important to make sure that we capture as many women who have gone through the institutions as possible and how they ended up there, as well as the harm and trauma that they must have experienced. It is extremely important for us to make sure that that is included.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, junior Ministers, for coming today. Some of what you have said has very much been in the Committee's thoughts during all its deliberations. One key area that you made some reference to is holding the institutions to account through financial contributions. I appreciate the difficulties that that there are with that, given experience elsewhere and because of the United Kingdom's legal framework, but, as a Committee, we are very keen to ensure that we stress-test the ability to make sure that we can garner as many funds as possible from those who caused the harm in the first instance. That is not saying, "We think you are guilty today", but it says that, once the public inquiry has reported, inevitably, there will be institutions that will be found guilty in those circumstances and, therefore, we need to be in a position to ensure that they make a contribution. Have any negotiations been undertaken? Maybe you do not want to expose that to us in detail but, at least in principle, can you tell us whether there have been negotiations with institutions? Has there been the prospect of mediation if they have said, "We do not have any money" and somebody has responded, "Yes, you do, because you have this or that building", or "These assets are here, there or wherever"? What investigation has been done to look at the resources that might be available? As I said, the key element for the Committee is still how that might be enforced.

The final area is negotiations with the Secretary of State and the Government. To what extent have they been pushed? How is it being negotiated? Is it just a case of saying, "They have said that they are not going to give us anything, and we have accepted that"? How are we going to push this forward? What levers do you have to press the Secretary of State? After all, many of the institutions, if not most of them, were, in some shape or form, funded or underwritten by the state.

Ms Bunting: Absolutely. I will take the first couple of points, and junior Minister Reilly will take the others. There is learning from and frameworks in the other schemes. Before we engage in negotiations, it is important that key principles are established. From our point of view, there is no question that contributions should be sought, and there is a moral obligation for there to be contributions. That needs to happen at the key time and at the right stage in the process to ensure that we are able to maximise them. Part of it is that we need to have that evidence base, as you say, Stewart, so that we can go to these institutions and say, "This is what relates to you. This is the harm that has been done through your institution". To do that in advance potentially causes detriment to our ability to garner contributions.

Enforcement is difficult. Other jurisdictions have had some problems in that area, even when it was legislated for. There needs to be a think about that, and conversations are under way with other redress schemes at official level and even at ministerial level. In the Republic and Scotland, there is particular learning about how we can secure and maximise contributions, because we know that that has sometimes been ignored. Scotland has a kind of name-and-shame provision, but that still does not bring forward the contributions. We will try to have conversations to ask, "What is the learning? What would you do differently? What would you give consideration to? What did you include?" so that we can try to maximise the opportunity, because it is only right and proper that these people, as you say, are given a contribution. The state needs to be involved. There will be negotiations, and we press the Secretary of State at every opportunity, because with the best will in the world, yes, these institutions were state-run and state-inspected. Therefore, there is a state element in this, and I do not think that it is acceptable for the Secretary of State to say, "Well, no, it is not our problem. Take it out of the block grant". It is a much bigger problem than that, and it is a much bigger problem across the entirety of the UK.

Aisling, I think that you going to take the other issue about the negotiations.

Ms Reilly: I will touch on the conversations with the Secretary of State. That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. It is one of the things that the Finance Minister continually raises, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister have raised it with the Secretary of State. I echo what Joanne said about how washing their hands of this and saying, "You will just have to finance it yourself", is not the right approach. We should also acknowledge the state's role in the issue. Going back, a lot of this happened during direct rule, so the UK Government also have a contribution to make.

Therefore, there is continued engagement on that through the Finance Minister and the deputy First Minister and First Minister. As Joanne also said, there are those other points to consider. We are trying to get conversations with Ministers in the South and in Scotland about how we can learn from their experience.

We know what did not work for them, and we are in a space in which we could learn from that. I think that we all agree that seeking contributions from those institutions is absolutely paramount, and we will do everything that we can at the right time to ensure that we get some contributions from those institutions.

Mr Dickson: I have a final point. In the consideration of this, there is one legal methodology that might be explored. I do not know whether you have considered this, and it is the stage when the inquiry determines that the harm has been caused by a particular institution but you have not been able to work out what the quantum of that might be. While I appreciate that, on the one hand, that might be a chill factor in the process, it also should act as a very serious warning that the tribunal has the power to seek a garnishee award against the institution. In other words, its property will be seized against any compensation that may be payable. That would substantially restrict the institution's ability to sell, move, transfer or do anything that means that it could avoid or dodge payment. Is that under active consideration?

Mr Carey: Stewart, all those options, I think, are under consideration. We have a very clear direction from Ministers, from the Committee and from victims and survivors. We have been trying to look at the very practical things, such as, as Joanne outlined, reporting duties in Scotland and what has incentivised individuals in those jurisdictions to contribute or not to contribute, so there is that carrot-and-stick approach. The Ministers can outline some of the issues that we have come across on assets. You would think that asset recovery is very straightforward, but it is very complicated. In lots of cases, assets could be liabilities, so there is a balance for the state to strike in taking on some of those powers. It is really for Ministers to reach a final view on that, but there are options that we are looking at. As junior Minister Reilly outlined, at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in particular, engagement on contributions has taken place with Norma Foley. There is also the work with Sheila Nunan, who is an independent negotiator who looked at asset bases. We are trying to learn all those lessons at this point.

Ms Bunting: It is important to come in on that point about assets and liabilities. On the face of it, it seems that, yes, an asset should be seized. However, the other side of it is that it should be borne in mind that some of those places might be asset-rich and cash-poor. We do not know the potential state of some of their assets, and you could end up doing them a favour by seizing an asset. We do not want to be in that space. I think that everything is on the table to see how we can maximise contributions, but we need to be sensible about it and make sure that it is worthwhile.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am conscious that I need to bring other members in.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Ministers, for your attendance. I do not envy you the task that is in front of you. I know that it is huge. It is a hugely important but highly sensitive piece of legislation, and I am glad that it is before us today and that it is being dealt with, because it is long overdue, as we all know.

I had a number of questions in my head, but they have kind of gone by the wayside, as they have been answered in a lot of your remarks, which have been very useful and very positive. This is a sensible scheme, and it seems fair. Clearly, we want to make it better if we can. I am very conscious that redress is not just about monetary value. Although the admission base is not talking about the harm in this case, you cannot pay for the harm that has been caused. That is not possible, and it would not be appropriate. Has any thought been given to what wider reparation, redress and memorialisation look like? We all want to see people get a fair amount of money from this in the form of redress. We need to see fairness, but we also need to see institutions being held responsible for their actions and the state being held responsible for its actions.

There is no argument about any of that. We know the challenges in that, and you have just spoken about them. However, is any thought being given to what we, as a society, can do to make reparation? I am very cognisant of the fact that we talk about the state and institutions, but we do not talk about the harms that we, as society, put upon those girls and women. We, as people and as families, put children and young people into those institutions, often willingly, and that was clearly very wrong. Is any thought being given to including something that could encompass that part of it? It is OK to blame somebody else. It is easy to blame somebody else and to have a hate figure who will pay, but what do we do about ourselves and the fact that society let that happen and willingly indulged in all those processes?

Ms Bunting: The apology is key, as is the memorialisation, with, potentially, a programme of memorialisation. In all that, the public record, particularly the testimonies that were given to the independent panel, will be massively important, because it will be the historical record of people's lived experiences. People will not have been cross-examined, so it will perhaps not have been as re-traumatising for people to give that evidence. All that is forming a historical document. It will all be on the record, and people's testimonies have been taken into account to ensure that something like this is never again allowed to happen.

The acknowledgements are key. The trauma that people were put through and the harm that was done to them needs to be acknowledged. As you said, no amount of payment will ever make up for that. However, the issue here is that, as a collective body and as a society, it is about making sure that the damage that was done remains in our memory, is memorialised and is never forgotten and that the records are there for all to see for future generations to learn from and understand.

Ms Reilly: We need to make sure that the other aspects of redress and support that we can provide to victims and survivors is trauma-informed and that we provide advocacy support for their health and well-being. Joanne touched on how it is also about memorialisation, telling the stories and making sure that we capture all of them, as well as about awareness and taking away the stigma of what those women and girls went through.

With regard to the entire process, the inquiry was able to get those testimonies and tell those stories. On the point about fairness, there is no fairness here because it should never have happened. However, it is about that whole wrap-around service and support that we can provide for victims and survivors not just going into the process or for today but for the years after the inquiry concludes and following the individually assessed payments. It is about what we can provide to victims and survivors following the process and making sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Welcome to the Committee. I have been in your chair, so I know what it is like. I am going to say this, and it is not in any way meant to be offensive, but I think that we need to drop the term "harm-based" and replace it with something else. I know that no one is deliberately setting out to be insensitive, but some victims and survivors have fed back to us that they feel that that term's constantly being referred to is insensitive. To be fair to them, they know that it is not being done with malice. I just want to respectfully ask for it to be changed.

Schedule 2 to the Bill looks at the list of groups. There are 11. You have all acknowledged, and the Committee found from its call for evidence, that people came forward who did not come forward as part of the consultative process or any other process. I think that is a good thing. They have come forward and told us that, at the minute, there are nine additional groups. Some of those people were very young girls. Nobody ever questioned the pathway for their being there, which is worrying. I know that you know that, but it needs to be mentioned. I am not asking you to give me an answer now. I am asking respectfully that you look at that. After people coming to us and finding that that is not reflected in the Bill or anywhere else, they just feel that they are being left out, so I am asking respectfully that you do that.

We on the Committee are interested in every issue. In fairness, though, we agree to take certain sections so that it will be easier for you. Have there been discussions with the Minister of Health about access to information? This all happened pre-devolution. This is the old state's responsibility. A number of records are held in different health and social care trusts. I declare an interest as a former keeper of records at PRONI. The people at PRONI are expert curators. They have training on article 2, 1923, GDPR and data protection. They have every training available, and they can train people how to do this work. They are also sympathetic and have the physical conditions to keep those records. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those records would not be passed to PRONI in advance of the inquiry. I am not asking you for an answer today, but if you could take that away, it would be useful.

I understand why clause 17, headed "Privileged information, etc", is in the Bill. I do not like it. I understand that it is a direct lift from the Inquiries Act 2005. Could some thought be given to amending what that clause says regarding closed material proceedings (CMPs)? If clause 17 cannot be amended, clause 16 could be. That was in the HIA, and I know that it was not used, because I checked. However, some victims and survivors have brought it up as an issue. Could we look at an amendment on closed material proceedings that the chair or panel could consider? Again, I am asking you not for any definitive answers now, just a commitment to have a good look at that matter.

Ms Reilly: Thanks, Carál. We appreciate that there has been difficulty accessing records and that it has caused deep distress and frustration for victims and survivors.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It has.

Ms Reilly: You asked about correspondence with the Minister of Health. Accessing records is key, and we will commit to having conversations with him. In any way, shape or form that we can streamline the process or make it as easy as possible for victims and survivors, we will commit to doing that. We will commit to speaking to the Minister of Health about accessing those records.

You spoke about replacing the term "harm-based". We can absolutely look at that language, because that concern is coming directly from victims and survivors.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, referring to the individualised payment —

Ms Reilly: Harm-based payment.

Ms Ní Chuilín: — as "harm-based" is jarring with people. They know that it has not come from a place of malice. It is just something that we could maybe look at.

Ms Reilly: I will pass over to Joanne on the CMPs.

Ms Bunting: With regard to public interest immunity (PII), we are aware that these are particularly sensitive issues in Northern Ireland. A lot of damage has been done. I was involved with the Kingsmills people and how they were treated over PII. We are aware of the situation around Noah Donohoe and so on and the impact that that has on public confidence, never mind on the people who are involved in those inquiries. That is under consideration, and we are seeing what we can do, because we are eager that, in all this, everybody who is involved has confidence in the process and is able to put their faith in it.

That issue is under consideration to see whether there is some way to ensure that there is a degree of protection for all concerned.

The aim in all this is disclosure and getting to the truth. The purpose here is not for people to be able to hide or for issues to be hidden. The aim is always disclosure, but circumstances may arise, and where they do, we need to ensure that there is some way in which they can be addressed, rather than the inquiry having nowhere to go with them.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Joanne, it would not be a big policy change. In my opinion, it would be a small amendment to clause 16 or clause 17. I am just putting the case on behalf of the Committee.

Ms Bunting: I assure the Committee that that is under active consideration.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr Brett: Thank you, both, for your presentation and for all your work on this issue. Clearly, you are very much across the detail and have taken considerable time to look at what the Committee discussed and, more importantly, what survivors and victims discussed. Thank you for that.

Context is important. The Bill as introduced was agreed unanimously by all Executive parties, is that not correct?

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Brett: OK. Any changes or amendments that come forward from the First Minister and deputy First Minister will be subject to the Executive's approval as well.

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Brett: OK. Perfect. That context is important.

I want to flag a couple of things. Unfortunately, as a Committee, we have not quite got through the entire Bill in our informal deliberations, so you may be here a bit prematurely, but we can get you back again.

Ms Bunting: Do not say that.

Mr Brett: I was not at the event in the Europa Hotel, but Carál spoke to a couple of victims who were there. Subsection (4) of clause 1 states:

We raised that with Martin last week. The Committee had been alerted to the fact that a number of the institutions may have continued to operate until 1998. Have Ministers thought, if not to keep the inquiry open-ended, to change the end date from 1995 to 1998?

Mr Carey: Minister, if it will help you, maybe I can —.

Ms Bunting: I can have a stab at it. Members will appreciate that I am trying to read myself into the Bill. You guys have probably been more at it than I have. You will note that subsection (5) states:

Obviously, if things have occurred outside that period and if the inquiry is following a line of enquiry, we all anticipate that that line of enquiry will be followed. Those impacts will be beyond the dates prescribed. Those people are living with those impacts today. We envisage that there is scope in there.

Martin, is that a fair enough assessment?

Mr Carey: Yes, that is absolutely fair. Clause 1 provides flexibility for effects after 1995. That came up during the consultation. People were concerned that harms, impacts and article 8 issues, particularly around access to records that were recovered, would not be considered as part of the inquiry, but those are absolutely key to the inquiry.

Clause 18 also provides the inquiry with flexibility if it deems something to be relevant to its terms of reference. A good example is probably that of an individual who has come forward. I have looked at that individual case, and I am happy to come back formally on it. We are confident that the last institution closed in 1990 or 1991, but that experience may have been across the border in Donegal.

Mr Brett: Perhaps you can come back formally on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, members, page 7 of your pack sets out the information on the institution in County Donegal, which closed in 1999. There is a wee bit of context there.

Mr Brett: Is that in tabled papers for today or yesterday?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Today.

The Committee Clerk: It was in yesterday's papers for today's meeting.

Mr Gaston: Just on that point, while we have brought it up, nobody has spoken to that person directly. It is inferred that that is what the person meant.

Ms Ní Chuilín: She spoke in public, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: I do not think that anybody in the Department has spoken to her.

Mr Carey: If you are happy, we will maybe deal with that offline and contact the individual separately.

Mr Brett: Yes, that would be useful.

Joanne raised the issue of unintended consequences of possible amendments, and I suppose that is important on two fronts. First, amendments could be introduced that could undermine the legal competency of the Bill, which would risk the whole thing. Secondly, amendments that are well-intentioned but, ultimately, increase the overall cost of the scheme may then make the entirety of the scheme unviable. Has any consideration been given to what is proposed in the Bill, the impact on the Executive's Budget if any changes were made to either the amount of funding in this round for posthumous payments or the date, and what impact that would have?

Ms Reilly: Obviously, at this time, the Bill is costed at £80 million. Getting into the nitty-gritty about costs makes me uncomfortable because, again, as we have said, no amount of money is too much for those people. On the impact on the Executive, if, for instance, we reverted back to 1922, it would cost at least an additional £27 million. That would just be to move it back to that date, and it would not cover administrative costs. Then, if you are talking about posthumous claims, you are talking about it jumping potentially to an additional £70 million. The costs are extreme with regard to where we are financially, but any decisions like that would need to come back to the Executive because they are policy changes. As it stands, the Bill is estimated to cost around £80 million, and that is what we hope to budget for. Obviously, every other decision that is taken about finance will have to go back to the Executive to be agreed.

Mr Brett: That is useful.

Ms Bunting: Chair, if I may, the broader that this becomes, the more that the focus is diluted. The key to it is that it is about women who were stigmatised and institutionalised, and how they were treated. It is very gender-based, and the more that we broaden it out, there is a danger that the focus on what happened to those women is lost. We just need to be conscious of that as well.

Mr Brett: OK. Finally, both of you articulated a number of amendments under consideration. My pen skills were not quite as quick as you were reading it into the record. Will that be followed up in writing?

Ms Reilly: Yes, we will follow up in writing to the Committee.

Mr Gaston: Thank you for coming along today. I have a slight concern, and I understand that £80 million out of the block grant is a large amount of money, but the more that I hear about the scheme, the more that I feel that the Executive would rather look after the Budget than pay the compensation in recognition of the harm that has been caused. The Bill is narrow in scope. We have had a number of people at the Committee giving witness statements, and, yes, we all agreed on the things that we would like to do. However, when we started looking into it, and the legislation appeared, we were somewhat limited in what we could deliver for people who had come to the Committee and given evidence. I am concerned that a lot of people will be left out of it, and I think that that is because the focus of the legislation has been to look at the location of the harm rather than its cause or the type of harm and the type of crime that has been committed. On that basis, I understand that there is not an endless amount of money, but people will be excluded because of the focus and direction that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have taken.

One of the things that I want to pick up on today is something that has been talked about quite widely in the Committee about the regulations. Concerns have been raised that the regulations will really only appear and come forward afterwards.

Ms Bunting: Sorry, Timothy, I missed that about the regulations.

Mr Gaston: Writing the regulations. Once the Bill passes the Final Stage, the regulations will be produced. On that basis, that is where a lot of the nitty-gritty and the detail is. We had raised concerns before, and had encouraged officials to work with us in the drafting of those regulations so that the Committee is kept up to date, understands and has a bit of input. I am looking for an assurance, and want to raise that with you as the leads to bring the legislation forward that that will be the case.

The biggest disappointment when we get into the legislation will be that we will not be able to hold the institutions properly accountable. That is the biggest feeling coming out of the Committee. We have £80 million set as a budget, and, to be honest, not one penny of that in this first stage will come from the institutions. You mentioned Scotland. According to RaISe papers, Scotland has, to date, £122 million in voluntary contributions, and that is just to date, so Scotland will be going back to get more money from its institutions. The South intends to seek contributions, and let us face it, some of the institutions that are paying into the Scottish scheme will have connections here, or maybe be the same institutions that we will be chasing here. More needs to be done on that on the basis that £80 million is simply not enough for the scheme, and there is an onus on us to go to the institutions to ensure that we have a properly funded scheme and that we are not falling short on that basis.

Joanne, you talked about "securing contributions at the appropriate time".

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Gaston: Scotland has shown that it has been able to get those up front without having run through the process in an inquiry.

Ms Bunting: Scotland's scheme is different. The issue for us is that our standard payment is an admission-based scheme, so the only evidence required at that point is whether somebody was admitted and had gone through the institution. Therefore, it is difficult to demand reparations or demand contributions from the institutions when there is no evidence base to present to them to say, "This is where you were culpable". That is why the timing is key, Timothy. It is so important that we can go to them and say, "This is the evidence. This is what has been found by an independent inquiry. This is what has been found by an independent panel. This is where you are liable". Also, on the contribution amounts, when we have worked through the application process, that will be the point at which we will be much clearer on the numbers involved and will be saying to them, "Contribute".

I appreciate what you are saying about the £80 million and its coming out of that. On the policy issues and your thinking that we are more focused on budget than on the issues at hand, I want to give you some reassurance. We are scheduled to have conversations with the Finance Minister. A decision was taken not to have a conversation with the Finance Minister around the budgets for all those things until such time as the policies are in place, because we do not want the monetary aspects to impinge upon the policy decisions. That demonstrates that we would rather focus on making sure that the right thing is done.

You can understand the difficulties that we face. Even when Scotland had it in its legislation, it was not getting massive amounts back. For us, the key is to have the leverage and the evidence and go and take the learning from Scotland to ensure that we can maximise where possible. I do not know whether Aisling or Martin want to come in.

Mr Carey: Just to add to what junior Minister Bunting said about the Scotland redress scheme. Of the £120 million that it has received in contributions, £100 million was basically from a local authority or a council-type organisation, so the actual contributions from institutions were quite a small proportion of that, and the overall amount will be significantly higher. The Scottish redress scheme will probably get about 10% from institutions. The other thing on that is that that was tied to waivers. The difference between the scheme that Ministers are introducing or the £60 million in redress is that an individual does not need to sign a waiver, so they can still access the civil courts if they like. However, in the Scottish redress model, that is one of the incentives for an institution to pay into the scheme.

Ms Bunting: To address your other issue, Timothy, on the next stage, the amounts that people will get and giving them fair payment, the first stage is admission based; the second stage is where people's lived experiences and the damage that was done to them is taken into account, and there is no cap on that thus far. That is where it will be individually assessed.

Ms Reilly: The other point is about the regulations. Whether the Committee can have sight of the regulations is something that we can bring back and discuss.

Mr Gaston: I move on to the records. I know that Carál has covered it. We have written to all the trusts and only one of them has digitised records. The rest are still in hard form. One of the witnesses mentioned that they had concerns about how the trust's records were being kept because they were exposed to the elements and vermin, mainly. Therefore, for the scheme to be successful, there is a pivotal piece for the Executive Office to work with the Department of Health so that all those records are pulled together and kept in as good a condition as possible. We should push that one.

Solicitors' firms will be acting on behalf of people. I have concerns that certain solicitors' firms will have a monopoly. What are your views?

Ms Bunting: I hold the same views as you do. This is not about solicitors' firms. I declare an interest in that my husband is a solicitor. I have concerns about that. As far as I recall, my husband is not involved in any of those cases. If he were to be, I do not know. It is important that that is on the record.

I share the same view. We have asked questions of officials about this and we are still working through some of it in the process. My fear, particularly around the core participant issue, is that I really do not want to see a hierarchy or tiers of people in the inquiry. We are all conscious of that, and we want to be sure that everybody is treated fairly, with a trauma-informed approach. That is on our radar, too, and we are looking at it. I am concerned about that. This is not about the solicitors' firms, people being able to make money or an industry. This is about the people who have been through those institutions and who were taken from their birth mothers and adopted. It is about those people. The focus needs to stay there. To my mind, the bulk of that money, whatever money there is, should go to victims and survivors and not to solicitors' firms. All of us are agreed on that.

Mr Gaston: I have some final points.

Ms Bunting: Obviously, people who are engaged in work should be paid. Solicitors deserve to be paid for their work.

Mr Gaston: On advertising, you mentioned that it would be up to the Committee Chair but the budget would come from the Executive Office, is that right? Is that included in the £80 million or will it be funded from outside that?

Mr Carey: There are elements, Timothy. There is a promotion cost included in the £80 million. Ministers can provide a view on this, but we have looked at other schemes, such as the HIA and victims' payments, about what promotion schemes have worked and were most effective. It has been interesting. There has been a bit of a mix. Leaflet drops were very effective in the HIA, but less so in victims' payments. There is a promotion budget within the £80 million.

Ms Reilly: We must get this to as many people as possible, not even just within the North, South and Scotland but even further afield. We must promote this and make sure that people reach out and engage with the process. That is extremely important. As Martin said, different things can work in different areas. Discussions are going on about the promotion.

Mr Gaston: I am just seeking assurance that, if there needs to be more money put into the budget, it will happen.

Ms Reilly: There is an assurance from us on the full promotion of the scheme. We will absolutely make sure that we reach as far and to as many people as we can, to ensure that as many people as possible engage with the process.

Ms Bunting: We cannot get more money for the budget, Timothy. That would take an Executive decision, from all the Executive parties, because the Executive, as a collective body, agreed the entire package.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, Joanne and Aisling, for providing us with an extensive briefing. I welcome the amendments that you have highlighted. Junior Minister Riley, you set out at the start that TEO should take a trauma-informed response to victims and survivors, and offer wraparound support even after the inquiry.

You have outlined your amendments. How will victims and survivors be engaged with? How will they be informed of the proposed amendments?

Ms Reilly: There is constant engagement between officials and the victims' and survivors' groups. That engagement is probably on a monthly basis, but the sharing of information is more frequent than that. I have met some of the victims and survivors. Joanne has not yet had the chance to but will aim to do so. It is always about making sure that this is victim-centred and that, first and foremost, support is available for the victims and survivors. It is about having a complete wrap-around service for their needs. Engagement with victims and survivors is fairly constant at official level, and, as I said, it will continue to be with Joanne and myself, as we move through the process and take things forward.

Ms Murphy: You highlighted, again, that it has to be victim-centred. A lot of victims have come forward, especially during the Committee's call for evidence. Given the amendments, and the amount of them, it is vital that TEO continues that engagement and that, ultimately, the voices of the victims are being heard and listened to. Thank you for that.

When will an inquiry chair be appointed? How will that process take place?

Mr Carey: We went through a process in the springtime or early summer in which we asked for nominations from the Victims and Survivors Forum. We got 29 nominations. After some desk-based research, another 30 names were added to the list. Those names have gone through a sifting and shortlisting process. The plan is very much for the Bill to become an Act. An individual cannot formally be made the inquiry chair until the Bill becomes an Act, which we would like to think will be before next summer. However, a chair designate can be put in place. We are working through the list to try to select an inquiry chair.

Ms Reilly: We are doing as much as we possibly on our side so that, when the Bill becomes an Act, we will be ready to go and there will be no delays in the appointments and the relevant administration. On this side, we are doing as much of that work as we possibly can.

Ms Murphy: That is reassuring, because the process that you have outlined seems to be well under way.

My final question is on cross-border engagement, especially with the Irish Government. Week after week, we have heard evidence about babies and women being, essentially, trafficked by institutions, North and South. Will you give us an idea of the level of engagement that you have had with your counterparts in the Irish Government? Is that engagement intensifying in the lead-up to, hopefully, finishing off the Bill?

Ms Reilly: The reports from Queen's University and Ulster University state that that was happening, but not just one way: it was back and forth. That will likely be a key interest of the independent panel and the inquiry. There has been good engagement, particularly at official level. It has been raised at the North/South Ministerial Council, and we are still getting ministerial engagement, but that does not dilute the fact that that official engagement is ongoing. At some point, we hope to have the like of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or some type of agreement between both jurisdictions. We are working towards that. There has been that engagement.

Ms Bunting: We are trying to get an MOU on the records.

Ms Murphy: To play devil's advocate, is there a timeline for that?

Mr Carey: There is a draft MOU in place. PRONI has been able to access a couple of things around private records — records that are held by institutions. We have digitised records in relation to Fahan in County Donegal. We are particularly interested in records that are held in Stamullen in County Meath, so we are trying to put arrangements in place to get those. The records in Fahan are from a private collection, and the collection in Stamullen is held by an institution — either Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland. We are working through MOUs. I do not have a particular deadline, but, hopefully, between now and Christmas, there will be positive talks at official level. Some ministerial engagement on that may be required in the new year as well.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Ministers, for coming along today. My Committee colleagues have covered a lot of ground. I agree with quite a bit of what has been said regarding posthumous claims, contributions from religious orders and the moral obligation to pay.

The redress Bill is multifaceted, as you have acknowledged, because it is about the apology, memorialisation and the stories, testimonies and evidence being put on record. It is not always about monetary redress, although that is really important. It is really about trying to get to the bottom and underneath the skin of a lot of that stuff.

Áine asked about the cross-border element, and how we address that, because, essentially, we are talking about crimes. What took place was child trafficking. We need to get to the bottom of that and understand it. You mentioned a draft memorandum of understanding. Will you share that with the Committee so that we can look at it?

It would be remiss of me not to mention that it is really unfortunate that no papers were sent in advance of your coming to the Committee. It would have been really helpful to have your presentation in written format in advance so that we, as the Committee that is dealing with these really sensitive issues, could get a handle on that and be able to question you on the detail. There was a lot of content there, but we did not have it in advance. That is really not good enough.

The final point that I want you to comment on, on which there has been no comment so far, is that, in the past, concerns have been raised about the progress of the inquiry and the redress scheme. What would happen if no Executive were in place? We have had experience of that in the past. Do you agree that the lack of reform and the instability of this place make it more difficult for victims and survivors to have confidence in the process when that instability is hanging over them? Can you address those issues?

Ms Reilly: If you do not mind, I will start, Joanne. I will bring Martin in on the draft MOU.

We apologise massively for your not having sight of the papers. As late as yesterday, we were working on the draft and having conversations with the First Minister and deputy First Minister about it. We apologise that we were unable to get that to you and that you did not have early sight of it.

Ms McLaughlin: Can I just interrupt you for one second, Aisling? This happens all the time.

Ms Reilly: With regard to the amendments —.

Ms McLaughlin: We just do not get papers. It is disrespectful. Respect works both ways.

Ms Reilly: I appreciate that, Sinéad. I apologise for that. As we go forward, we will endeavour to ensure that you have papers as early as possible.

As I said, our commitment today, and every day that we turn up here, is to ensure that we do the best for the people whom we represent. Of course, that includes victims and survivors and others who are affected. We turn up every single day, as you do, to ensure that we not only work for them but deliver. That is really important when it comes to the draft legislation and everything else that we deal with day to day. Our commitment is to turn up every day to work for the people whom we serve and represent.

Martin will respond on the Committee getting sight of the draft MOU.

Mr Carey: I am happy to share that, subject to the views of Ministers. I was going to say that it is a kind of boring document. It outlines data sharing agreements (DSAs) between Departments and with individuals. I am happy to share that. I do not think that there is any issue with doing so.

Ms McLaughlin: It is really important, because one of the institutions was in Fahan. That is nine miles from Derry, so for a lot of my constituents who are affected by this, that was the institution to which their babies were taken. Therefore, it is really important that we have an understanding of how that cross-border element works and what understanding there is North/South, as well as the interstate connections.

Ms Bunting: Absolutely. We cannot compel the preservation of records. The power to compel is only applicable in Northern Ireland, but we appreciate that there is a cross-border and cross-jurisdictional dimension, so it is important that the records are preserved and that we can get access to them. That is key for us too, Sinéad.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There are a couple more matters before we let you go, junior Ministers. I asked you a question earlier in the week about historical clerical child abuse, junior Minister Reilly, and you mentioned that you were engaging with victims and survivors already. I have had some correspondence off the back of that, and there are members of the reference group who feel that you could go a lot further. In February or March, we will receive some evidence from a panel of survivors. I would really appreciate it if you could engage with them before that. I am talking about not just the chair of the interdepartmental working group but the actual victims and survivors of that form of abuse.

Ms Reilly: I have met some, but not all, of the members of the reference group, and I have met other individuals outside that group. I also know that some members of the reference group have written to the First Minister and deputy First Minister as well. That is the only way that we can go forward in engaging with victims and survivors. I know that that correspondence is with the First Minister and deputy First Minister to arrange that engagement with the reference group.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I just wanted to put that on record, because I received some correspondence off the back of asking that question.

Junior Minister Reilly, you will be aware of a separate issue. I am not sure whether you were listening outside, but Phillip Brett has indicated that he wants to raise another issue with you, so I invite him do that now.

Mr Brett: Thanks, Chair. It is disappointing that I have to raise this issue. The statement by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on Monday stinks to high heaven of a political cover-up. Junior Minister, it is my understanding that you were invited and received an invitation to attend the event on 19 October 2024 in your capacity as junior Minister. Is that correct?

Ms Reilly: Chair, with all due respect, I have come here as junior Minister to talk about the mother-and-baby institutions and the legislation, which is extremely important. I feel that, to end on this, is extremely crass. I came here in good faith as junior Minister to talk about the legislation.

Mr Brett: Chair, I gave advance notice to you that I would raise this issue. Junior Minister, your party colleagues gave you advance notice that I was going to raise it. I did not raise it during the deliberations on the Bill because this is such an important issue, but you have a responsibility to answer to this Committee, junior Minister. You received an invitation as junior Minister to attend that event. Is that correct?

Ms Reilly: I can confirm that I attended the event as a Gaeilgeoir and as a West Belfast MLA.

Mr Brett: Can you answer the question? Did you receive an invitation to attend as junior Minister?

Ms Reilly: Chair, the badgering —. I attended the event as a Gaeilgeoir and as a West Belfast MLA.

Mr Brett: The record will reflect that the junior Minister —.

Ms Reilly: I did not attend the event as junior Minister.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, just let —. I said that I would give time and space for this conversation, so we will be respectful.

Mr Brett: The record will reflect that, when the junior Minister was asked on three separate occasions at the Committee whether she received an invitation to the event in her role as junior Minister, she refused to answer. I believe that that is deliberately deceptive. The reason that I am doing that, Chair, is because of comments made by the PPS in its statement on Monday that —.

Ms Murphy: Chair, sorry, this is —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Let me just let Phillip —.

Mr Brett: Sorry, you are not the Chair of this Committee, Áine, so I get to speak and you do not.

Ms Murphy: Hold on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Please, we are trying to keep this as respectful as possible. Please finish, and then I will bring you in, Áine.

Mr Brett: There is an attempt by Sinn Féin to try to shut this down, Chair, but I will continue —. [Interruption.]

Sorry?

Ms Murphy: Go ahead.

Mr Brett: Thank you. Chair, the statement made by the PPS on Monday said:

When a Minister receives an invitation to attend an event, advice is provided by officials. Some of that advice also includes a list of attendees and other people who have been invited to the event. One of the reasons that a prosecution for the criminal damage was not secured was because we did not have a list of attendees. I believe, Chair, that that might be in the possession of the Executive Office having been received by the junior Minister, and I want clarity on whether that was provided to the police during the police investigation.

I further understand that the invitation that was sent to the junior Minister, which she refuses to deny receiving, included an offer of four free tickets for Sinn Féin to the event. I want to know whether the junior Minister issued one of those tickets to the person responsible for attacking the portrait. I want to put those questions on the record. It is the responsibility of the junior Minister to answer those questions to the Committee. If she refuses to do so, the public will be very clear on why she is trying to cover up the issue.

Ms Reilly: I did not attend the event as junior Minister; I attended as a Gaeilgeoir and a West Belfast MLA. I came to the Committee today as junior Minister to talk about a really important piece of legislation connected to the truth recovery programme, and I did so in good faith. That is my purpose today. That is what I am focused on. I did not attend the event as junior Minister; I attended as a West Belfast MLA.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I will bring in Áine.

Ms Murphy: The Minister has responded. I noted this at the start of the meeting — I do not want to go over old ground — but the Minister was there in her capacity as an MLA and as a Gaeilgeoir. I do not know whether there will be further questions on that, but it is pretty clear that it does not fall within the remit of the Committee. If there are any other questions, members are free to contact TEO directly.

Mr Brett: There will be a proposal coming to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Through the Chair, please.

Timothy, you have indicated that you want in.

Mr Gaston: As I raised during declarations of interest at the start of the meeting, this goes to the heart of the procedural integrity of the Committee. You were at the event in question, junior Minister. My understanding is that the staffer that resigned from Sinn Féin worked to you. Can you confirm that that is correct?

Ms Reilly: Chair, I did not attend the event as junior Minister; I attended as a Gaeilgeoir and a West Belfast MLA. This is continued badgering. I came here, as junior Minister, to talk about this important piece of legislation and the truth recovery programme. I came here in good faith, and that is my focus for today.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I have a number —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You can have one follow-up question, and then I am going to —.

Mr Gaston: On that basis, junior Minister, you are refusing to answer the questions. It is, essentially, in the public domain that Naoise Cullen worked to you as a translator. Naoise was at the event. He then came forward —

Ms Murphy: Chair, those questions are not relevant to the Committee.

Mr Gaston: — and said, of his involvement —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Wait one wee second, Timothy. Let me make this clear: the Committee has received legal advice in the past that members can ask questions and that it is up to those who are present how they wish to respond. Finish your point, and then I will make my comments.

Mr Gaston: My understanding is that your staffer was at the event. Your staffer then —.

Ms Reilly: Are these questions to me as a junior Minister, since that would relate to this Committee?

Mr Gaston: It would be helpful if you answered the questions and provided some clarity on that, because that is my understanding. It is your Pledge of Office from when you took up the role of junior Minister that is in question. Confidence is being trashed because it is alleged that a member of your staff was involved. A member of your staff subsequently resigned from the party, and I want to know on what basis he resigned. On what basis was he at the event? Was he one of the people who got a free ticket? Did you see Mr Cullen at the event? You know him, obviously. We have had that excuse here before when the First Minister stepped in and stopped you having to answer questions on the McMonagle paedophile scandal, when you were seen quite clearly in a picture with him. There is a trait here —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Excuse me, sorry, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — of you not wanting to —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are going too far.

Mr Gaston: There is a —.

Ms Reilly: I reiterate that I did not attend the event as junior Minister; I attended the event as a West Belfast MLA.

Mr Gaston: You were at the event. You could clear those questions up quite easily.

Ms Reilly: I attended the event as a West Belfast MLA. I do not know how much clearer I can make that. I have answered the question.

Mr Gaston: You refuse to answer the question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, please.

Ms Reilly: Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, please, I have been given advice by the Clerk of the Committee. The junior Minister has noted that she was not there in her Executive Office capacity, so questions pertaining to the event are outside the purview of the Committee. I appreciate that it is a matter that some members wish to pursue, but there are more appropriate channels within the Assembly by which to seek information —.

Mr Brett: Sorry, Chair, I disagree with that ruling because —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have not finished. Let me just finish.

Mr Brett: — as I have made clear, she was invited as a junior Minister, and she has refused to rule out the fact that she was invited as junior Minister, so it is within the scope of the Committee. You can read from your scripted remarks, and the Minister can read from her scripted remarks, but, clearly, this is a matter for the Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Phillip, I have been respectful throughout.

Mr Brett: So have I, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am trying to be as careful as I can, as Chair of the Committee. I appreciate how emotive the issue is for people. I recognise that it is an issue of public interest. I represent South Belfast, which is part of the Belfast City Council area, so I recognise the importance of the matter. However, I spoke to the Committee Clerk this morning, and we went through it. I am mindful of my responsibilities and the Committee's responsibilities, and I think that we should return to the agenda, unless the junior Minister wishes to respond.

Ms Reilly: I have made my comments very clear. Unless there are any further questions about the legislation, thank you.

Mr Gaston: Can I put on record that I am deeply disappointed that the junior Minister has failed to take the opportunity to clear up what involvement her staff had in the destruction of the portrait in Belfast City Hall, which speaks volumes to the Committee? When the junior Minister took up office, she signed a Pledge of Office. What is the point of having a Pledge of Office or declarations of interest, if people just cherry-pick what bits matter to them and what bits do not? The procedural integrity of this Committee is in tatters because of it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): What procedure have we not —?

Mr Gaston: I am not saying anything about you. I believe that you have chaired the Committee well. I am saying that members of the Committee who refuse to declare an interest bring the integrity of the Committee into question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I repeat for the record that, where you need advice or guidance, I refer you to the Commissioner for Standards. Áine, did you want to come back in?

Ms Murphy: No, Chair. I have nothing further to add.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. We will move on. Thank you.